Verizon's top lawyer penned an editorial this week asking President Barack Obama to prevent the U.S. International Trade Commission from barring the sales of some older iPhones.

The ITC ruled in June that the AT&T versions of Apple's iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G all infringe on patents owned by Samsung, and that the devices must be banned from sale by Aug. 5. While the decision doesn't affect Verizon directly, the company's general counsel, Randal S. Milch, published an editorial in The Wall Street Journalthis week calling on the Obama administration to veto the ITC's decision.

"Patent litigation at the ITC ??where the only remedy is to keep products from the American public ? is too high-stakes a game for patent disputes," Milch wrote. "The fact that the ITC's intellectual-property dispute docket has nearly quadrupled over 15 years only raises the stakes further. Smartphone patent litigation accounts for a substantial share of that increase."

While Verizon opposes the ban because of the precedent it would set, the carrier has not taken a position on the larger Apple v. Samsung patent dispute. The carrier simply believes that the Obama administration should do its part to discourage companies from "clogging the ITC's docket" with such patent infringement complaints.

Such a move would be rare ? no president has vetoed an ITC decision since 1987. But no precedent has been set for patent infringement cases, which is where Verizon believes the president should set the tone on three specific instances:

When the patent holder isn't practicing the technology itself.

When the patent holder has already agreed to license the patent on reasonable terms as part of standards setting.

When the infringing device of the product isn't that important to the overall product, and doesn't drive consumer demand for the product at issue.

Apple, too, is attempting to fight the ITC ban, and has filed a stay in opposition. The company has said the ban would "sweep away an entire segment of Apple's product offerings," and negatively impact its carrier partners.

Didn't Microsoft win a case against Motorola where the ITC was supposed to ban Motorola phones coming into the country but hasn't, supposedly due to closed door meetings between the government and Google? If they don't ban the Motorola phones how can they get away with banning the iPhones?

"Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here."

The bigger picture has to do with a ban over FRAND/SEP patents, something the current administration (and possible previous ones) disagrees with. The ITC has made a huge statement, which doesn't necessarily agree with their other decisions, and this is what Verizon and Apple are arguing against. Samsung is not complying with government regulations dealing with FRAND but the ITC refuses to accept this. Samsung has some 3G patents that are required by all cellphone vendors that were accepted as standards and yet they are holding Apple hostage over them demanding a ridiculous amount of money for each handset over something that is a very small part of the entire device. Verizon could be next in line for any FRAND patent and they don't want to see phones they are trying to sell banned.

I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.

Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.

Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.

You do understand the president can veto this right? The ITC is not part of the judiciary. Obama is the person who can right this wrong and as a result set policy as he is authorized to do.

I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.

Nope, it doesn't matter. FRAND doesn't mean Apple doesn't have to pay anything and all parties must continue negotiating in good faith. Likewise the ITC judges found Apple was not simply willing to negotiate. This is the right recourse for arrogant companies like Apple who thinks it can prevail in the US because it's Apple's hometown court.

Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.

Every report has mentioned this is an issue appealable to the president. The ITC is a trade commission, not a legal court. More like the Canadian pipeline than a burglary conviction.

Samsung is making over-the-top demands from Apple knowing full well Apple won't accept. Then they "claim" Apple is an unwilling licensee so they can seek a ban. Samsung is also trying to tie in Apple non-SEP's for cross-licensing, which the FTC just said was a big no-no.

The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.

Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.

As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.

This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.

Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.

Quote:

Yet idiots like KD still try and spin a few supporters of injunctions and claim there's widespread agreement for them. There isn't. And as long as AI lets you losers post I'm going to call you out on it.

Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.

Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).

All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:

Quote:

"Indeed, Microsoft, or any other implementer, is not free to infringe Motorola’s standard essential patents, and were that to occur, this court’s ruling with respect to injunctive relief may be different."

...

"If, in the future, those circumstances change in a manner to warrant injunctive relief, Motorola may at that time seek such relief."

The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.

Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.

As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.

This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.

Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.

Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.

Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).

All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:

More spin as usual. If you want me to take the time to bring up every case or group that's against injunctions then you have to do something for me first. It's really quite simple:

Go back and answer the 101 questions I (or others) have posed to you in the past to prove your claims. You see, this is a pattern with you. Make a claim and then leave the thread when you get called out on it. Then re-appear in another thread and make the same claims over.

Perfect example? You STILL haven't responded to my touchscreen questions. You know, that thread where you claimed to be a touchscreen engineer with "decades" experience. This was supposed to somehow add credibility to your ridiculous argument about Apple's touchscreen patents. Sort of like the losers who claim to own an Apple device so they can then turn around and bash Apple disguising it as legitimate criticism. Then when I announced that I had actually won a nationwide award for my touchscreen application back in the 80's (and have extensive experience with touchscreens) you disappeared. Of course you would. The last thing you expected was someone on AI to be an expert in touchscreen technology and it backfired on you spectacularly.

You have no right to demand of me (or anyone else on AI) to provide proof when you avoid the same such requests made of you.